Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics  (Read 2797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JoeZ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 349
  • Reputation: +224/-27
  • Gender: Male
Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2020, 08:34:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just as a funny side note, I remember getting Portuguese 308 ball delivered to my house for $120/1000. That's 12 cents a pop...literally.
    Pray the Holy Rosary.


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9965
    • Reputation: +6397/-956
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #31 on: January 08, 2020, 12:29:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just as a funny side note, I remember getting Portuguese 308 ball delivered to my house for $120/1000. That's 12 cents a pop...literally.
    Stack it high and deep!


    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #32 on: January 08, 2020, 08:45:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just as a funny side note, I remember getting Portuguese 308 ball delivered to my house for $120/1000. That's 12 cents a pop...literally.


    :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

    Hearing that hurts.  At least in the pocketbook.  :cowboy:

    That Port is good stuff.  Really good.  I may have a stash of it myself.  And fine brass at that.  I pick it up off the floor at matches all the time because it is "un-reloadable."  Not.


    Offline Immaculatam Hostiam

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 69
    • Reputation: +38/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #33 on: January 08, 2020, 08:47:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Mark79, Bonaventure, JoeZ, thanks for your input and links. It does help.

    Very good points about some bulk ammo being worth buying rather than reloading which really wouldn't save you much more if anything...

    Would .270 Winchester be worth reloading or should I stick to buying in bulk? Regarding the reloads, I would be completely satisfied if the reloads have about the same performance as Remington CoreLokt. Are there reasonably priced reloading equipment that can make reloads with that level of performance?

    How about .357 magnum?

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #34 on: January 08, 2020, 08:57:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Would .270 Winchester be worth reloading or should I stick to buying in bulk? Regarding the reloads, I would be completely satisfied if the reloads have about the same performance as Remington CoreLokt. Are there reasonably priced reloading equipment that can make reloads with that level of performance?

    .270 Win is not a military caliber, so not sure if buying "in bulk" is all that available; at least at a discount.  Further, given that that cartridge is more generally a "hunting cartridge," it seems ammo makers extract a premium.  As such, that's a decent caliber to consider reloading for.  Also, from your criteria above, just about any single-stage press should suit your needs, along with the components I've described above.  


    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #35 on: January 08, 2020, 09:03:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How about .357 magnum?

    When I recently picked up a wheel gun in that caliber, I didn't even bother looking at commercial ammo.  As I already had all the components to reload, I simply went to the LGS and picked up a set of titanium carbide dies (no lube required) in .357 Magnum, along with some Starline brass and three boxes of differing weighted bullets.  Chose a powder, and loaded up a few ladders for each bullet weight.  Tested at the range, and selected the best combination.  I'm not going to be using this in competition, so for me, good enough is good enough.  By being able to reload, I have the ability to be a lot more selective, and the process will pay for itself in the long run.  

    Offline Kazimierz

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7414
    • Reputation: +3507/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #36 on: January 08, 2020, 09:06:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My neighbour reloads his 270 WIN rounds with Barnes bullets. These are strictly used for deer hunting, and from what he has shown me, the results are impressive (and tasty!)

    It all depends on how much you shoot your 270. They are not one of the cheaper rounds north of 49 so folks are a bit more sparing. :cowboy:
    Da pacem Domine in diebus nostris
    Qui non est alius
    Qui pugnet pro nobis
    Nisi  tu Deus noster

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #37 on: January 08, 2020, 09:21:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well then… you are straddling the fence, needing both "mass quantities" (plinking) and "precision" (non-magnum rifle cartridges that shoot flat and still reach out at a distance).

    As a competent reloader, I would approach "mass quantities" with a progressive reloading press (e.g., pick your price point with the Dillion line https://www.dillonprecision.com/ ), but approach "precision" with a high-end single-stage coaxial reloading press (e.g., Forster https://www.forsterproducts.com/ ) and a bevy of high-end (viz., expensive) accoutrements (e.g., magnetic restoration scale https://www.accurateshooter.com/gear-reviews/sartorius-magnetic-scale-is-fast-ultra-precise/ ).

    In the decades when I was active in "3-Gun" competition, I typically shot 1,000-4,000 rounds per month in practice. I decided to reduce my costs, so I scrounged my brass and was gifted brass and reloaded it all. It took me about 2 weeks of evenings to reload about 2,000 rounds (clean, lube, re-size, case-length trim, de-lube, inner chamfer, outer chamfer, prime, charge, seat projectiles, box). I tallied my receipts and discovered that for giving up two weeks of evenings I had saved—wait for it—about $50 for the 2,000 rounds compared to the cost of buying milspec in bulk.

    Speaking for myself, It was worth $50 for me to re-capture 2 weeks of evenings with my family. I gave my Dillon to a buddy and ever since, for "mass quantities," I shop price commercially and carefully (https://ammoseek.com/ http://www.gunbot.net/ and am on several email lists for bulk ammo distributors).

    XLR, however, is entirely different. With one possible exception (vide infra), nothing commercial "Match" shoots as precisely as my handloads, not Federal Gold Medal Match, not Black Hills Match, not even Lapua Match. I have selected components, powders, projectiles, charge weights, and "jump" based on OCW ladders proven at distance. My reloads outperform them all… except…

    …the Berger line of ammunition (formerly Applied Ballistics Munitions), https://bergerbullets.com/product-category/ammunition/, the brainchild of the well-known ballistician Bryan Litz. For the life of me I do not understand how they mass produce ammunition that shoots as well as my flake-by-flake meticulous handloads. That said, my reloads beat the very high price of the Berger ammunition—for example, .338 Lapua with Berger's 300gn Hybrid OTM Match runs about $5/rd, (Lapua 300's are about $7/rd) not quite twice what my equivalent reloads cost. What is your time worth?

    I hope this has been helpful.

    You know, there is some middle-ground between 3-gun competitions and XLR, right? :cowboy:

    From Zero to Dillon can be a bit of a leap, both in costs and knowledge.  But a buddy of mine has done it, so not impossible.  Not too long ago, I looked at getting a Dillon (can't remember if it was the 550 or the 650) for loading 9x19.  However, after doing the math, IIRC, I figured it would take at least ~9000 rounds before it even came close to paying for itself.  Didn't even factor in the time it would take to load all of that.  I didn't shoot enough to justify its cost, and came to the same conclusion that, at least for the time being, purchasing in bulk was the better route. 

    Also, a lot of what I reload for is service rifle, and while I'm sure the Dillon setup is top-notch, I have a difficult time trusting a progressive (read: my ability to run same).

    Two other things to consider. 

    First, if buying in bulk/mass quantities, generally speaking, not only are these in military calibers (e.g., 9x19, 7.62 NATO, 5.56 NATO), but they are almost always FMJ.  Last I checked, I wasn't a signatory to the Hague convention, and see no reason to limit myself to it.   Being able to reload broadens one's bullet selection in just about any caliber.

    Second, what prices/availability are today does not mean what they'll be tomorrow.  I recall not too long ago when there was really no ammo available.  At least not without having to donate a kidney to finance same.  Those days could come again.  Further, depending on where one lives (e.g., California), ammo restrictions are the gun-grabbers next tool.  Thus far, ammo components are not being attacked on the same level.  It therefore just makes good sense to have to the tools and know-how necessary in the event that some day ammunition is in short supply, but you may still be able to "roll your own."


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9965
    • Reputation: +6397/-956
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #38 on: January 08, 2020, 09:52:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You definitely covered the middle ground well.

    I agree 100% with what you and Kazimierz said about .270—no bulk pricing and commercial is expensive. That said, the math works out similarly for .270. Since most (not all) hunters only fire a few boxes of ammo per season, even a modest reloading set-up would take years (a lifetime?) to recover the cost. I took a different approach regarding .357 Mag. For me, the balance of time and money prompted me to buy commercial. Since I had no brass on hand, buying commercial provided me not only ammunition, but also a source of brass (once expended). I'll admit that time weighed heavily in that "calculus."

    As you say, reloading does somewhat mitigate chokepoints on ammo availability (you know, the "reasonable gun control" of ammo import bans, ammo taxes, ammo registries, and ammo purchase limitations—all of which have been implemented in some jUSA jurisdictions).

    And, of course, there is just plain old "prepping."

    I share your spurning of progressive presses for reloading accurate ammo.… Yet… There are even PTR (Precision Tactical Rifle) champions who use heavily-modified Dillons  to produce their competition and practice ammo. That's not for me. Single-stage coax!

    Since you mentioned "ladders" and I mentioned "OCW," I thought it would be good to give Immaculatam Hostiam (Should I use the dative case since he is the indirect object? :-) ) this reference:

    Dan Newberry's Optimal Charge Weight Load Development..
    http://www.ocwreloading.com/

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #39 on: January 09, 2020, 09:45:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you liked that page, you can see the entire comic here: http://judaism.is/h0Ɩ0cαųst.html#talesoftheh0Ɩ0h0αx

    The comic is really well done, so well done that the artists went to jail.

    A bit more background on this truly hilarious iconic "underground" masterpiece on the h0Ɩ0h0αx.  Michael Hoffman claims (3rd paragraph into the article) to be the true author and I believe him.  (If I'm not mistaken the one providing the illustrations was one going by the name of A. Wyatt Mann.)  As for the absolutely injustice of the two gents that went to jail for merely distributing the work, Michael has preserved the story here for posterity: https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/02/tales-of-h0Ɩ0h0αx-and-denmarks-anti.html

    Here is an important follow-up article to the story.  The 2 lads got sent up the river big time merely for possessing, publishing, and distributing hilarious (uh, er, rather in the words of the state: "racially inflammatory") material: https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/01/legal-judgment-against-distributors-of.html

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #40 on: January 09, 2020, 10:03:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I share your spurning of progressive presses for reloading accurate ammo.… Yet… There are even PTR (Precision Tactical Rifle) champions who use heavily-modified Dillons  to produce their competition and practice ammo. That's not for me. Single-stage coax!

    Point of clarification: I do not spurn progressive loaders because of any inherent inability to produce accurate ammo.  I shy away from progressive loaders when loading for service rifles (e.g., M1 Garand, M14 clone, AR-15), all of which are gas guns and have floating firing pins, wherein a single primer seated slightly proud could result in an out-of-battery ignition, or a slight overcharge in powder could damage a gas system. Not good.  I tend to hand-prime and individually weigh the charge for each cartridge when loading for service rifles.  This isn't to say that a Dillon (or other progressive presses) need be avoided; I just choose for my own reasons to use a single-stage press, and I don't load enough handgund ammunition to justify getting a second progressive press.  YMMV.  


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9965
    • Reputation: +6397/-956
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #41 on: January 09, 2020, 10:08:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Point of clarification: I do not spurn progressive loaders because of any inherent inability to produce accurate ammo.  I shy away from progressive loaders when loading for service rifles (e.g., M1 Garand, M14 clone, AR-15), all of which are gas guns and have floating firing pins, wherein a single primer seated slightly proud could result in an out-of-battery ignition, or a slight overcharge in powder could damage a gas system. Not good.  I tend to hand-prime and individually weigh the charge for each cartridge when loading for service rifles.  This isn't to say that a Dillon (or other progressive presses) need be avoided; I just choose for my own reasons to use a single-stage press, and I don't load enough handgund ammunition to justify getting a second progressive press.  YMMV.  
    Ahhhhh!
    I prime cases by hand.
    http://www.xxicsi.com/super-precision-click-head-br-priming-tool.html

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #42 on: January 09, 2020, 10:24:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since you mentioned "ladders" and I mentioned "OCW," I thought it would be good to give Immaculatam Hostiam (Should I use the dative case since he is the indirect object? :-) ) this reference:

    Dan Newberry's Optimal Charge Weight Load Development..
    http://www.ocwreloading.com/

    In the above link, Newberry states: "I cleaned the rifle, and shot two fouling shots...."

    This brings up an interesting point, one of which I'm not sure if there is a correct answer.  Also, this is in relation to precision rifle shooting (not necessarily service rifle).

    There seems to be two schools of thought.  The first is the above, wherein a cleaned barrel needs to be fired a few times to create some fouling in the barrel. Only upon building up this fouling can it be expected to shoot in a consistent, repeatable manner.  Obviously, if one is shooting a match, where many shots may be fired in a single day, this method seems to make sense.  The bore is only cleaned periodically, and thus there is always some fouling contained therein, even on cold-bore shots.   

    The second school of thought, and one advocated by certain snipers, including Carlos Hathcock, was that the first cold-bore shot is the one that counts, and as such, it must always be taken from a cleaned barrel.  As one "student" of his relayed, Hathcock would meet him once per day at the range (this was on a military base), wherein he would take only a single shot at a target, noting the weather conditions and where the shot landed relative to point-of-aim.  After that one shot, the student was instructed to go back to the armory, and thoroughly clean the bore of the rifle.  The student would come back the next day, and repeat.  This was done for several weeks/months until the student had built an extensive D.O.P.E. for that rifle/cartridge combination.

    I suppose there is a third school of thought, which is as described in the below video, which is to clean only with a solvent after every shoot; no brushes.

    From a practical standpoint, my shooting falls into either the first or third school.  As I don't have quick access to a range, it would take quite some time to build a D.O.P.E. using the second school of thought.  That being said, I have not had a chance to compare either of these methods with one another to see which one is actually better. 


    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1264
    • Reputation: +806/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #43 on: January 09, 2020, 10:28:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9965
    • Reputation: +6397/-956
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marksmanship: Back to the Basics
    « Reply #44 on: January 09, 2020, 10:36:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In the above link, Newberry states: "I cleaned the rifle, and shot two fouling shots...."

    This brings up an interesting point, one of which I'm not sure if there is a correct answer.  Also, this is in relation to precision rifle shooting (not necessarily service rifle).

    There seems to be two schools of thought.  The first is the above, wherein a cleaned barrel needs to be fired a few times to create some fouling in the barrel. Only upon building up this fouling can it be expected to shoot in a consistent, repeatable manner.  Obviously, if one is shooting a match, where many shots may be fired in a single day, this method seems to make sense.  The bore is only cleaned periodically, and thus there is always some fouling contained therein, even on cold-bore shots.    

    The second school of thought, and one advocated by certain snipers, including Carlos Hathcock, was that the first cold-bore shot is the one that counts, and as such, it must always be taken from a cleaned barrel.  As one "student" of his relayed, Hathcock would meet him once per day at the range (this was on a military base), wherein he would take only a single shot at a target, noting the weather conditions and where the shot landed relative to point-of-aim.  After that one shot, the student was instructed to go back to the armory, and thoroughly clean the bore of the rifle.  The student would come back the next day, and repeat.  This was done for several weeks/months until the student had built an extensive D.O.P.E. for that rifle/cartridge combination.

    I suppose there is a third school of thought, which is as described in the below video, which is to clean only with a solvent after every shoot; no brushes.

    From a practical standpoint, my shooting falls into either the first or third school.  As I don't have quick access to a range, it would take quite some time to build a D.O.P.E. using the second school of thought.  That being said, I have not had a chance to compare either of these methods with one another to see which one is actually better.  


    I have tried the different schools and have not found a statistically significant difference among the results. There may be a difference, but, if so, is lost in the "noise" of my abilities.
    Also, it sure is convenient not having to clean so frequently. :-)